I AM A JEW (PART XIX - I Almost Wish I Hadn’t Started This Study!)

As the title shows this is the 18th part (actually the 19^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the parts.

Part I, Part II, Part III, Special Bulletin, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, Part X, Part XI, Part XII, Part XIII, Part XIV, Part XV, Part XVI, Part XVII and Part XVIII.

As I reach Part XIX of this series, I am beginning to wish I hadn’t started this research. I started researching and writing on this subject because I was shocked at the brutality of the Gaza campaign, a murderous infliction of collective punishment on innocent civilians, having no other purpose than to terrify. The message was, “accept what we impose upon you - don’t resist - resistance is futile - any attempt at resistance and we will kill you, your wives and your children. We will destroy your homes, your infrastructure and make your lives a living hell, and if you thought it was already a living hell, think again, we can and we will make it even worse.

But for all that I wrote about Gaza before, I neglected to mention other horrors.

J Street called attention to the fact that:

Even before the horrible 50-day military confrontation this summer in Gaza, the water situation for the 1.7 million Palestinians who live there was desperate.

 According to UNICEF, more than 90 per cent of the water extracted from the territory's sole aquifer is unsafe for human consumption; an estimated four-fifths of the water sold by private vendors there contaminated. Additionally, nearly 100,000 cubic meters of wastewater are discharged into the sea every day because sewage treatment plants are overwhelmed.

Currently, potable water flows from Israel to Gaza through two pipelines. A third pipeline has been constructed but has not been turned on. Israel could turn the lever tomorrow and double the flow of clean, potable water to Gaza.

 This action is being held up pending broader negotiations that, of course, are complex and may never reach fruition.

That was bad enough!

But my research uncovered so much more. The massacres from the beginning! The ethnic cleansing from the beginning! I almost wish I hadn’t found out.

But what I have begun must be finished! Pleasant or unpleasant, the truth must be uncovered! It must be told.

The inhumanity of man to man is old. But I thought Jews were better than that. And still my research uncovers more. I started with how proud I was to be a Jew. Can all the achievements of all these Jews, from Einstein to all the others wash away the crimes committed in the name of creating a Jewish state. I hear the lament from Shakespeare’s Macbeth:

Here’s the smell of the blood still. All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. 

I thought that the destruction of homes of Palestinians who commit acts of terror had come to an end. (See: Part IV where I wrote:

As long ago as 2005 Israel announced that it was halting the demolition of militant’s homes, an implicit admission that this was a policy that had been in effect. See here.

But here is a headline from the BBC.  See here and here.

 Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered that the homes of Palestinians who have carried out attacks in Jerusalem be demolished.

No one has been convicted. And most of the people living there are not even accused. But there is no respect for due process. No respect for Arabs.

Israel is supposed to be the last refuge for Holocaust survivors, but to quote from Haaretz See here or here:

According to the Foundation for the Benefit of Holocaust Victims in Israel, 87 percent of Holocaust survivors who request financial aid live on less than NIS 5,000 a month, while 58 percent live on NIS 3,000 or less. Meanwhile, 70 percent of survivors who turn to the foundation cannot afford dental care, and 18 percent need financial aid to pay for eyeglasses.

But where does the Israeli government spend its money, instead of helping Holocaust survivors. According to The Forward: 

“…state spending on the settlers… includes the cost of building homes and other facilities, special hardship subsidies and providing energy, communications, roads and other infrastructure not needed by the military…. They do not include the likes of health, education and welfare spending on the 350,000 West Bank settlers included in the statistics. The CBS data include 19,000 Israelis in the Golan Heights annexed from Syria and, until 2005, 9,000 settlers in the Gaza Strip. They exclude 200,000 Israelis living on land annexed and incorporated into Israel’s Jerusalem municipality.

But where is the money for the Holocaust survivors?

But what about Holocaust survivors in the United States? Some 350 Survivors and Descendants of Survivors ran an ad in the New York Times reading in part:

Genocide begins with the silence of the world, …We must raise our collective voices and use our collective power to bring about an end to all forms of racism, including the ongoing genocide of Palestinian people. 

See here. The complete text can be found here.

Well, they do not represent all Holocaust survivors, and I don’t give this group any special standing, but they are entitled to a hearing. Are they right to claim special status because of their Holocaust connection? I would think not, but at least their Jewishness and their Holocaust connection aught to shield them from the charge of anti-Semitism, just as I asserted my Jewishness, and my pride in being Jewish as a shield against claims of anti-Semitism, or of being a self-hating Jew.

But how were they treated? It tells us much more about the unconditional supporters of Israel, then about their critics.

Here were some of the comments by Israelis that appeared on Facebook translated into English:

David Cohen: Those aren’t Holocaust survivors those are probably collaborators with the Nazis.

 Shmulik Halphon: He’s invited to go back to Auschwitz.

 Itzik Levy: These are survivors who were Kapos. Leftist traitors. That’s why they live abroad and not in the Jewish State.

 Vitali Guttman: Enough, they should die already. They survived the Holocaust only to do another Holocaust to Israel in global public opinion?

 Meir Dahan: No wonder Hitler murdered 6 million Jews because of people like you you’re not even Jews you’re disgusting people a disgrace to humanity and so are your offspring you are trash.

 Asher Solomon: It’s a shame Hitler didn’t finish the job.

 Katy Morali: Holocaust survivors who think like this are invited to go die in the gas chambers.

 Yafa Ashraf: Shitty Ashkenazis you are the Nazis.

Please note the inherent anti-Semitism in many of the comments.  The last comment about Ashkenazi Jews (those who came from Europe) were the primary victims of the Nazis and the founders of the State of Israel, but they are now the double victims of Israeli anti-Semitism.

But they weren’t the only ones who savaged the Jews who spoke out.

The Forward published an article by Alvin H Rosenfeld, Professor of Jewish Studies at Indiana University  and author of The End of the Holocaust, which savages the authors of the Times ad under the title: "Moral Emptiness of Holocaust Survivors Who Took on Israel - TheTrue Face Behind a New York Times Ad" and can be summarized by its last paragraph.

In fact, it is unlikely that many people emerged from Hitler’s camps ennobled or enlightened. To believe otherwise and to arrogate to oneself as a “survivor” or a relative of a “survivor” some special access to wisdom and virtue is, as IJSN’s ad shows, little more than moral pretense.

But since Israel’s very founding was predicated on the persecution of Jews in the Holocaust, it is perverse to denigrate the very group whose existence and suffering formed the impetus for the founding of the State of Israel.

Or as one post in the response to the article points out:

This article is a sad, completely ad hominem, attack on this group of Holocaust survivors. These are people who are carrying on a traditional of Jewish social activism; many have heroically taken the tragedy of their own dehumanization and channel that toward decades of work for peace and justice. It is one thing to disagree with them (and to make reasoned arguments to that effect), quite another to launch into a dismissive rant against them that doesn't even consider the content of the letter that they published in the NYT. Trying to end the violence and build some sort of constructive and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not an "anti-Semitic" project. Indeed, it is necessary for the survival of the Jewish state.

 Unfortunately, Professor Rosenfeld essay says nothing useful or constructive about the urgent issues confronting that area of the world. He's more interested in besmirching the reputation of other US-based Jewish intellectuals who happen to disagree with him.  

It is indeed unfortunate that an intelligent, fact based, debate on Israel’s policies cannot be had without this kind of vitriol.

The kneejerk defense and justification for every Israeli action, no matter how ignoble or outrageous, is a sad commentary on the traditional humanism and social consciousness that has so long been the hallmark of Jewish tradition.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.

America’s Place in the World (Discussion)

Hopefully, many of you have by now read my recent commentary entitled “America’s Place inthe World."

I have had a number of comments and exchanges as a result of that posting, and would like to share that discussion with you.

Janet Cooke of Philadelphian, Pennsylvania wrote:

I was just thinking about your blog and that I was missing hearing what you might be thinking about this budget/healthcare/threaten to shut down the government fiasco we are witnessing in Washington now!  I was planning to communicate with you this morning about missing your commentary -  and then I opened the email from you and found the comments from Eric re: Syria, etc., and your response.   

 Not the topic that was on my mind but good to hear your thinking!  I'm always glad to learn what you're thinking about situations and behaviors that amaze and overwhelm me.  The budget stuff and the ridiculous but dangerous(?) behavior of the Republicans is of great concern.  Maybe, because like you, I've wanted to expect so much better behavior from members of our government, it's especially upsetting. I am tuned in.

To which I responded:

With respect to the shutting down of the government and the even more serious imminent failure to raise the debt ceiling there is not much to say. It is akin to a father, (or a mother) taking one of their children hostage and demanding ransom for not harming such a child. Will the mother (or father) pay! Probably yes. But when that happens again and again, without any assurance of the safety of the child or even children, there comes a time when it is necessary to say no more. These are our children. This is our economy. This is the world economy. You can't use that for blackmail.

The trouble with paying ransom to hostage takers is that the more one pays, the more it encourages the hostage-taking. No matter what the cost, at one point one has to refuse or there is no end to it. The ransom will just keep going up. 

However, even though you feel this crisis is front and center, I would still like to have your input on my exchange with Eric Offner on the Syria debacle.

Nancy Vieira, who works for the National Institute of Health, and is domiciled in Silver Springs, Maryland, contributed the following:

So good to read your column once again! Thank-you for deciding to respond to your friend’s provocative email and for posting it on your web site for us (always!) interested readers.  

It never ceases to amaze me how cruel and barbaric the “civilized” human species can be. I will never forget watching a live broadcast from a hut in Rwanda and, as the journalist spoke in the doorway of the hut, seeing in the background, down the dirt road, 2 men with machetes hacking away at “something” on the ground (a fellow human being was my presumption). Striking with a machete and seeing up close what it is you are actually doing to a “living thing”, to me, is mind boggling enough. But, dropping a bomb of chemical weaponry on your own citizens, innocents, while comfortably sitting at home with plenty of food, water, all the comforts of modern day living and family and friends, not ever having to see the chemical damage inflicted upon the human and other animal species up close and personal, their suffering, is unconscionable.   

And, to turn one’s head and say, “it’s not my problem” is also unconscionable. I cannot imagine how a human being can justify condoning these acts of vicious cruelty. I can only hope that, one day, we will all live in peace on this planet.

Prompting me to reply as follows:

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

You are one of very few, who has seen barbarity up close. Every time we close our eyes we become accomplices. It is so easy to say there is nothing we can do. There is always something we can do. Where there is a Will, there is a Way. 

It is high time for us to take the words, "NEVER AGAIN" seriously". But it isn't only chemical weapons that should arouse our ire, as horrible as they are. Every time we condone atrocities, and in Syria we should have acted after the Hama murders in 1982, which few people even remember. (I might add that I had not remembered it until I read Thomas Friedman's book "From Beirut to Jerusalem" published in 1989, but not read by me until three years ago. It is still an eye opener.

Again thank you for taking the time to write.

And finally, Herb Reiner, of Cedar Grove, NJ expressed this view:

Glad to hear from you that you’re well and glad to see that you have not lost interest in expressing your political views despite the lack of response to your last commentary. I will just add a few observations to chew on. 

  

Firstly, the distinction between a civil war and a revolution is nebulous and in the case of Syria one can truly say it is both. The Syrians are certainly not fighting against a foreign occupying power. 

  

Secondly, even from the early stages of the conflict, Obama realized that the Opposition was fractured and disorganized. The most motivated and well organized among them were the Islamist, who today appear the strongest among the opposition groups. Obama was always left with bad choices, but I believe his reluctance to supply heavy weapons was justified.  The secular groups, it seems are welcoming all the support they can get from the Islamists and it is not clear who would control our heavy weapons.  Let's not forget how the Stinger missiles we supplied to Pakistan were used to shoot down our own aircraft.  

  

Thirdly, it may be beyond the power of even the most powerful military in the world to alone help "people being slaughtered," without engendering even worse consequences. We should be thankful that Obama did not have to carry out his threat against Assad crossing the red line with the fantasy of a quick in-and-out punishment, which would kill even more innocent victims and could plunge the whole region into chaos.  As for overthrowing Assad  -- be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!  

 Best wishes and keep writing and thinking.

Prompting this response on my part:

It’s so good to hear from you and to have the benefit of your views.

It is so easy to find reasons to close one's eyes. Maybe, because of my background as a Holocaust survivor, who remembers, and who has studied the history of that atrocity while the world found just as many reasons to close its eyes. There were worse things than Hitler they said. We should be worried about the Communists, not the Nazis. What business is it what happens to German Nationals? We must not interfere in their sovereign affairs.

Above all we have our own problems with high unemployment, and didn't we have enough getting involved in European affairs in World War I.

Even when Britain was on its last legs, they argued it is only about protecting the British Empire, what do we care. 

I fear that what we are witnessing is neo-isolationism.

Yes, I hear the arguments that you are making. But that was not true in the beginning. In the beginning we witnessed peaceful demonstrations of an oppressed people and we saw Hama of 1982 all over again. That was the time to say NO - NOT AGAIN! This will not stand!! At the very beginning a no fly zone, which could have been attained with weapons fired from off shore at airbases, should have been imposed. It would not have been 100% successful. So what. It would have made a difference.

Yes, a lot of extremist elements have reared their ugly head. But that is because we stood aside. If we wouldn't help them others will jump in. And so they did. But even now we see battles between secular groups and religious ideologues. Why don't we help the secularists? The longer we don't help them, the more a desperate people turn to the Jihadists. Our failure has helped the Jihadists and continues to help them. But above all where is our sense of compassion; our sense of justice.

Now as to Stinger missiles. The problem is not that we supplied them to Pakistan. We supplied them to the Taliban to shoot down Soviet planes in the Soviet-Afghanistan campaign. Was that a mistake? NO!!!!! At a time when we were in a life and death struggle with the Soviets, handing them a major defeat was the first, and possibly only, priority. In any case Stinger missiles have not been our major problem in Afghanistan. Very few of our planes have been shot down by Stinger missiles. In fact we have lost very few planes. The weapons that have bedeviled us are IEDs, the roadside bombs, not Stinger missiles. That is a phony argument that is being used. But, carefully selected groups would minimize the risk if any. 

Does anyone really think that if we stand aside and don't try to influence events that things will turn out better than if we do? That doesn't work in private life and it doesn't work in public events. Trying, even if sometimes failing to influence events, is almost always the better course. 

As for "plunge(ing) the whole region into chaos" this is not what our action would do. It is our non-action that is doing this. Our non-action is destabilizing Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and possibly others. Both Turkey and Jordan have been begging us to help.

This argument is essentially one to be left to the Right. Laissez-faire is an argument that should be left to the proponents of the Right. Pacifism sounds good. But is has never worked. Isolationism has its appeal, but it too has never worked.

I continue to invite comments, questions, or corrections, and will respond to them. I will distribute such exchanges with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

Hostage Taking at Home - Discussion

Since posting my my commentary "Hostage Taking at Home and Expansionism," I have had four exchanges - one relating to hostage-taking at home and three relating to expansionism abroad. I will post them in four separate posts.

The first response came in the form of a query from Bruce Weintraub, who wrote:

"Since you mentioned you're a Holocaust survivor, may I ask if you had the misfortune of being in a concentration camp? Or were you in hiding like Anne Frank? Your personal history may be the most interesting thing of all. A few years ago, I visited a concentration camp in Oranienburg, about an hour away from Berlin. Made me feel so sad."

I responded:

Thank you for your interest.

The answer to your question can be found in my biography.

"Emil Scheller is a retired lawyer. He was born in Vienna, Austria and came to the US in 1939 at the age of nine. He is a holocaust survivor, his father having been incarcerated first in Dachau and then in Buchenwald for about a year. His father survived and fled to Italy with his wife, Mr. Scheller's mother. After receiving American visas there they were able to join Mr. Scheller in the US in 1940.

Mr. Scheller holds a B.A. degree in in government and political science from CCNY and a Doctor of Juris in Law from Columbia University. Since retiring in 1990 he has spent much of his time studying American history."

I would think that there are very few people still alive who spent time in Nazi concentration camps. Leo Wells, a  recent neighbor of mine was one of those, but he died recently.

Upon his passing I wrote a letter to my local newspaper which you can read here.